Abstract

Efficient mitochondrial function is required in tissues with high energy demand such as the heart, and mitochondrial dysfunction is associated with cardiovascular disease. Expression of mitochondrial proteins is tightly regulated in response to internal and external stimuli. Here we identify a novel mechanism regulating mitochondrial content and function, through BUD23-dependent ribosome generation. BUD23 was required for ribosome maturation, normal 18S/28S stoichiometry and modulated the translation of mitochondrial transcripts in human A549 cells. Deletion of Bud23 in murine cardiomyocytes reduced mitochondrial content and function, leading to severe cardiomyopathy and death. We discovered that BUD23 selectively promotes ribosomal interaction with low GC-content 5'UTRs. Taken together we identify a critical role for BUD23 in bioenergetics gene expression, by promoting efficient translation of mRNA transcripts with low 5'UTR GC content. BUD23 emerges as essential to mouse development, and to postnatal cardiac function.

Data availability

RNAseq data have been deposited to ArrayExpress, under the accession code E-MTAB-8673. All proteomics data is included in the supporting files, and raw data have been deposited to PRIDE under the accession code PXD017019.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Matthew Baxter

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    matthew.baxter@ocdem.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3612-2574
  2. Maria Voronkov

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Toryn Poolman

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Gina Galli

    Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Christian Pinali

    Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Laurence Goosey

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Abigail Knight

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Karolina Krakowiak

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Robert Maidstone

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Mudassar Iqbal

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Min Zi

    Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Sukhpal Prehar

    Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Elizabeth J Cartwright

    Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Julie Gibbs

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Laura C Matthews

    Leeds Institute of Medical Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Antony D Adamson

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Neil E Humphreys

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Pedro Rebelo-Guiomar

    Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Michal Minczuk

    Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8242-1420
  20. David A Bechtold

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Andrew Loudon

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. David Ray

    OCDEM, University of Oxford, Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    david.ray@ocdem.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Medical Research Council (MR/L010240/1)

  • David Ray

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments were carried out in strict accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (UK) and protocols were approved by an internal ethics committee at the University of Manchester. Every effort was made to minimize suffering. Home office project licence 70/8768 and P3A97F3D1.

Copyright

© 2020, Baxter et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,727
    views
  • 392
    downloads
  • 11
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Matthew Baxter
  2. Maria Voronkov
  3. Toryn Poolman
  4. Gina Galli
  5. Christian Pinali
  6. Laurence Goosey
  7. Abigail Knight
  8. Karolina Krakowiak
  9. Robert Maidstone
  10. Mudassar Iqbal
  11. Min Zi
  12. Sukhpal Prehar
  13. Elizabeth J Cartwright
  14. Julie Gibbs
  15. Laura C Matthews
  16. Antony D Adamson
  17. Neil E Humphreys
  18. Pedro Rebelo-Guiomar
  19. Michal Minczuk
  20. David A Bechtold
  21. Andrew Loudon
  22. David Ray
(2020)
Cardiac mitochondrial function depends on BUD23 mediated ribosome programming
eLife 9:e50705.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50705

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50705

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Jingjing Li, Xinyue Wang ... Vincent Archambault
    Research Article

    In animals, mitosis involves the breakdown of the nucleus. The reassembly of a nucleus after mitosis requires the reformation of the nuclear envelope around a single mass of chromosomes. This process requires Ankle2 (also known as LEM4 in humans) which interacts with PP2A and promotes the function of the Barrier-to-Autointegration Factor (BAF). Upon dephosphorylation, BAF dimers cross-bridge chromosomes and bind lamins and transmembrane proteins of the reassembling nuclear envelope. How Ankle2 functions in mitosis is incompletely understood. Using a combination of approaches in Drosophila, along with structural modeling, we provide several lines of evidence that suggest that Ankle2 is a regulatory subunit of PP2A, explaining how it promotes BAF dephosphorylation. In addition, we discovered that Ankle2 interacts with the endoplasmic reticulum protein Vap33, which is required for Ankle2 localization at the reassembling nuclear envelope during telophase. We identified the interaction sites of PP2A and Vap33 on Ankle2. Through genetic rescue experiments, we show that the Ankle2/PP2A interaction is essential for the function of Ankle2 in nuclear reassembly and that the Ankle2/Vap33 interaction also promotes this process. Our study sheds light on the molecular mechanisms of post-mitotic nuclear reassembly and suggests that the endoplasmic reticulum is not merely a source of membranes in the process, but also provides localized enzymatic activity.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bhumil Patel, Maryke Grobler ... Needhi Bhalla
    Research Article

    Meiotic crossover recombination is essential for both accurate chromosome segregation and the generation of new haplotypes for natural selection to act upon. This requirement is known as crossover assurance and is one example of crossover control. While the conserved role of the ATPase, PCH-2, during meiotic prophase has been enigmatic, a universal phenotype when pch-2 or its orthologs are mutated is a change in the number and distribution of meiotic crossovers. Here, we show that PCH-2 controls the number and distribution of crossovers by antagonizing their formation. This antagonism produces different effects at different stages of meiotic prophase: early in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 prevents double-strand breaks from becoming crossover-eligible intermediates, limiting crossover formation at sites of initial double-strand break formation and homolog interactions. Later in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 winnows the number of crossover-eligible intermediates, contributing to the designation of crossovers and ultimately, crossover assurance. We also demonstrate that PCH-2 accomplishes this regulation through the meiotic HORMAD, HIM-3. Our data strongly support a model in which PCH-2’s conserved role is to remodel meiotic HORMADs throughout meiotic prophase to destabilize crossover-eligible precursors and coordinate meiotic recombination with synapsis, ensuring the progressive implementation of meiotic recombination and explaining its function in the pachytene checkpoint and crossover control.